Tando v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Fernando Tagle owned a parcel of land which he mortgaged to Kalibo Rural Bank and later sold a portion to Jose Gonzales. The bank foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the property. Esperanza Tando, mother of the petitioners, redeemed the foreclosed property from the bank and the riceland portion from Jose Gonzales, based on a Deed of Assignment of Right of Redemption from Fernando Tagle. Private respondent Benjamin Tagle, Fernando's son, subsequently offered to redeem the property from Esperanza Tando multiple times, but was refused. This led to Fernando Tagle initiating a legal action for redemption. Procedural History: The initial action for redemption was filed by Fernando Tagle against the Tando spouses and the Kalibo Rural Bank. Fernando Tagle died during the proceedings and was substituted by his son, Benjamin Tagle. The Tando spouses also died and were substituted by their children, the petitioners. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, declaring the Tando spouses as absolute owners and invalidating the Deed of Assignment presented by the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ordering the Tando spouses to allow redemption within a specified period and declaring the subsequent deeds of sale void. The Court of Appeals denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners, the heirs of the Tando spouses, seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision through a petition for certiorari. They argue that the appellate court erred in holding that the private respondent still has the right to redeem the property, in declaring the deeds of sale from the provincial sheriff to Kalibo Rural Bank and from the bank to Esperanza Tando as void, and in awarding annual income to the private respondent. The petitioners contend that the redemption by Esperanza was based on a verbal agreement, not the Deed of Assignment, and that their ownership stems from the Deed of Sale, not the redemption.
Issue(s)
Whether Esperanza Tando redeemed the property pursuant to a Deed of Assignment by Fernando Tagle, thereby rendering void the subsequent deeds of sale in her favor. Whether the Deed of Assignment presented by private respondent was the authentic document embodying the real agreement of the parties. Whether private respondent is entitled to an award of P20,000 per annum representing the income of the property from the date of filing the petition for redemption until the final transfer of the property.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decisions dated September 30, 1996, and the resolution dated January 27, 1997, of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Esperanza Tando redeemed the property pursuant to a Deed of Assignment by Fernando Tagle, thereby rendering void the subsequent deeds of sale in her favor: The Supreme Court found in the affirmative. The Court noted that petitioners admitted that Esperanza redeemed the property from the bank by virtue of a deed executed by Fernando assigning his right of redemption to her, with the dispute centering only on what Esperanza presented to the bank. Furthermore, the bank issued a Deed of Redemption to Esperanza, which was registered. The Court found it improbable for a bank to allow a stranger to redeem a mortgaged property without written authorization, emphasizing the bank's protective nature of its interests. The testimony of the bank's former assistant manager corroborated that Esperanza presented an authorization from Fernando Tagle. Consequently, the redemption by Esperanza removed the bank's rights over the property, making the subsequent Final Deed of Sale to the bank and the Deed of Sale to the Tandos void, as the bank had no right to transfer ownership. On the issue of whether the Deed of Assignment presented by private respondent was the authentic document embodying the real agreement of the parties: The Supreme Court again found in the affirmative. The Court considered the testimony of the private respondent more logical and credible, corroborated by other witnesses. Private respondent testified that the deed, which provided for a five-year redemption period, was taken by Alejo Terencio, who represented the Tando spouses, before it could be notarized. This was supported by the testimony of Araceli Gonzales, who stated that Terencio presented a document signed by Fernando Tagle, Benjamin Tagle, and two other witnesses when redeeming the riceland portion. The testimony of Atty. Roldan also indicated that Terencio presented an unnotarized waiver from Fernando. The Court found Alejo Terencio's testimony inconsistent with that of the mortgagees and noted the improbability of a lawyer failing to secure a duly signed and notarized deed for his clients. The Court also reasoned that a five-year redemption period was more logical than a five-month period, given Fernando Tagle's objective to avoid losing his property to the bank. On the issue of whether private respondent is entitled to an award of P20,000 per annum representing the income of the property from the date of filing the petition for redemption until the final transfer of the property: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The Court reasoned that private respondent's right of redemption was subject to a five-year period, which had not expired when the complaint for redemption was filed. Therefore, Fernando Tagle (and subsequently Benjamin Tagle) did not lose ownership over the property and were entitled to enjoy its fruits, including the income derived therefrom. Since the petitioners did not dispute the amount of P20,000 per annum set by the Court of Appeals as the annual income, the Supreme Court found no valid reason to alter it.
Main Doctrine
A Deed of Assignment of the right of redemption, if validly executed and presented with proof of authority, renders subsequent deeds of sale void if they transfer the property to parties other than the rightful redeemer, and entitles the original owner to the income from the property during the period redemption was unlawfully denied.